> Harmed or threatened to cause harm to a person or property damage
The enhancement is doing so "in order to obstruct the administration of justice" -- I don't think that any of the actual dangerous actions were done to obstruct.
> Substantial interference with administration of justice
That's defined as a "premature or improper termination of a felony investigation; an indictment, verdict, or any judicial determination based upon perjury, false testimony, or other false evidence; or the unnecessary expenditure of substantial governmental or court resources."
I think the first two don't fit the factual picture that we're aware of; the last _could_ but I think it unlikely that there was that much conduct that was beyond the obstruction charge that caused this.
> Extensive in scope, planning, or preparation
Possibly - the SG don't go into much detail about what they mean by this; however, I would be surprised if this enhancement applied (but less so than the other two).
Yeah, you're probably right. The prosecutor press release makes a point of talking about his experience as a pilot and a skydiver, so "special skills" might apply. But the big-ticket accelerator is (b)(1)(A), and I think you're right that it can't apply to him exfiltrating and cutting up his own airplane.
Turns out yes to the extensive planning enhancement, as well as an aggravated role enhancement. But no to the harm/substantial interference/special skills enhancements. Details in uncle/aunt comment (is that a term?) now that I've found the plea agreement.
Thanks! I found it in the California Central District PACER instance by searching for his full name (both the court and name given in the DoJ press release) - I suspect the national index syncs only so often with the individual PACER instances and it just hasn't got this case yet.
The enhancement is doing so "in order to obstruct the administration of justice" -- I don't think that any of the actual dangerous actions were done to obstruct.
> Substantial interference with administration of justice
That's defined as a "premature or improper termination of a felony investigation; an indictment, verdict, or any judicial determination based upon perjury, false testimony, or other false evidence; or the unnecessary expenditure of substantial governmental or court resources."
I think the first two don't fit the factual picture that we're aware of; the last _could_ but I think it unlikely that there was that much conduct that was beyond the obstruction charge that caused this.
> Extensive in scope, planning, or preparation
Possibly - the SG don't go into much detail about what they mean by this; however, I would be surprised if this enhancement applied (but less so than the other two).